Class Action Status Requested For Malicious Prosecution Suit Against RIAA

Remember Tanya Anderson? After the RIAA’s case against the 42 year-old single mother for downloading gangsta rap was dismissed with prejudice, Tanya turned around and sued the RIAA for fraud, racketeering, and malicious prosecution. Now, her lawyers have filed papers in federal court asking to grant her suit class action status. From Ars Technica:

The development, first reported by p2pnet, hopes to make a class out of those “who were sued or were threatened with sued by Defendants for file-sharing, downloading or other similar activities, who have not actually engaged in actual copyright infringement.” In other words, a class of the innocent. In the complaint, Andersen alleges that the RIAA “has engaged in a coordinated enterprise to pursue a scheme of threatening and intimidating litigation in an attempt to maintain its music distribution monopoly.”

This is the first attempt to condense a lawsuit against the RIAA into a class action. We wish them nothing but the best of luck in their crusade against the worst company in America.

RIAA faces possible class action over suing the innocent [Ars Technica]
(Photo: josephp)


Edit Your Comment

  1. morganlh85 says:

    You go girl!

  2. dbeahn says:

    I hope they gut the RIAA.

  3. Lin-Z [linguist on duty] says:

    finally, someone sues the RIAA!

  4. overbysara says:


    RIAA sucks

  5. mantari says:


  6. lestat730 says:

    kick ass!

  7. Nighthawke says:

    RIAA built their guillotine, why not allow them to test it upon themselves?

    Let the blade fall and fall agian upon their necks!

    Count me in for the litigation. They owe me at least $100K for the pain and suffering from the fear that they have levied upon me.

    Now don’t they owe the rest of us for the cloak of darkness that they have imposed upon the light of knowledge?

  8. kable2 says:

    when they catch someone shareing songs, they should be limited to at the most 3x 99cents per song.

    What a concept, sue your customers.

  9. doctor_cos wants you to remain calm says:

    Consumers are not the RIAA’s customers. The RIAA is a ‘trade group’ whose stated goals are to protect ‘intellectual property rights’ although typically those belong to the corporations, not the artists. Still looking forward to the day when the last record company gets their head out of their ass and works the system, not the customers.
    Fuck DRM, the RIAA, and the MPAA.

  10. timmus says:

    I can’t believe it’s taken this damn long for people (lawyers?) to get their collective asses together about this.

  11. homerjay says:

    GO freedom train! GO!

  12. ckolony says:

    This is excellent. Probably a hard case to get the class certified in, but excellent none the less. I wonder if the RIAA and their cohorts saw this coming?

  13. Jesse in Japan says:

    It’s about time somebody realized that the RIAA is no different from any other criminal organization.

    Those bastards ought to see jail time for their racketeering and extortion campaign.

  14. ju-ju-eyeball says:

    I sent the RIAA this email twice:

    Hello RIAA,

    I have just a few questions:

    When I was in high school I used to tape songs off of the radio. Where were you then? Why was it ok to tape music off the radio then, but not to download it off the internet now?

    I have bought over the years hundreds of LPs, 8-Tracks and cassettes that I have lost, destroyed or thrown away. As I have already paid for this music, can I download these songs for free?

    Given the quality of music is heading into the garbage, and artist and band releasing only one or two songs worthy of replay (where are the A & R men of the past??), why should I buy an entire CD for only 1 or 2 good songs?

    It is also a known fact that CD prices have been artificially inflated for years. Where is my refund?

    What if I want song “A” by artist “B” and it is not currently in release? Should I download it, or am I out of luck?

    What about public domain music? Can I download that?

    Thank you for your attention in this matter. And by the way, I OWN over 200 CDs. (Some great, some good, and some just plain stink!)

    I do not think they really care about consumers…
    And their web site sucks. Why do corporations go through all the trouble to have a web site and then make it so hard to figure out a way to contact them? But that is a whole different rant…

  15. du2vye says:

    How the RIAA gets away with the claim that they represent 90% of music in the U.S. when all they do is collect a fee when a song is “sold” – whether it’s a RIAA label or not – to equal the same thing as “representing” musicians is beyond me.

    But then I can’t figure out the stupidity (or greed – or both) of Congress to let the RIAA continue on as it has. Not only that, put their seal on the claim that downloading is the same as murder and it’s a ‘homeland security threat’???

    It’s pretty obvious why the RIAA labels are loosing money. I’m afraid Anderson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem. If she wins, someone will pass a law to make what RIAA does legal.

  16. quantum-shaman says:

    @ju-ju-eyeball: For trade associations who represent their members on “politically sensitive” issues, it’s damn near impossible to track down the contact information through the website. It’s quite intentional. They don’t want to be flooded with emails from pissed off people.

  17. quantum-shaman says:

    P.S. the CEO of RIAA made approximately $1.4 million in cash compensation for the ’06 fiscal year. That’s quite hefty for an organization with only $46 million in revenues. I am sure a big part of that was an incentive payment which means the Board must be pretty pleased with the CEO’s/RIAA’s performance. Will the compensation go down, post-class action lawsuit? Let’s watch!

  18. Echodork says:

    You are not the RIAA’s customer. The recording labels are the RIAA’s customers. So when the RIAA talks about “protecting their customers’ investments,” please bear in mind that you are not the target of that statement. What they mean is, they want to protect the profits of their shareholders from you, the pirating public.

  19. gtr225 says:

    Good luck to her.